DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
December 12, 1986
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Charles L. Miller, Director
Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
A u d i t of the Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division - Weight
Enforcement. This report is in response to the July 26, 1985 resolution
of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
The report addresses the need to strengthen enforcement of commercial
vehicle weight 1 imits. Bypassing of ports of entry, together w i t h
insufficient enforcement w i t h i n the interior of the State, inoperative
scales and widespread failure of the justice courts to impose minimum
statutory penal t i e s , undermine the State's weight enforcement program. We
recommend that these deficiencies be addressed and that greater
enforcement efforts be directed a t trucking companies that repeatedly
violate weight 1 imits.
My s t a f f and I will be pleased to discuss o r c l a r i f y items i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
D O U ~ RS. Norton
Auditor General
Staff: Will iam Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Stephen G. Adel stei n
Margaret E. Cawley
Kimberly S. Hi1 debrand
Cindy G. Whitaker
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) , Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) ,
weight enforcement function in response to a July 26, 1985, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit i s cne
i n a series of audits on ADOT, and was conducted as part of the Sunset
Review set forth i n Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § § 41- 2351 through
41 - 2379.
Overweight trucks accelerate pavement deterioration and increase stress on
bridge structures. This deterioration increases exponentially as truck
weight increases. For example, a 100,000 pound truck does three times as
~ u c h damage as an 80,000 pound truck. In order to mitigate the damage
from overweight trucks, MVD has a weight enforcement program. This weisht
enforcement operation is comprised of 18 fixed ports of entry on the
S t a t e ' s borders and several mobile scale crews that operate i n the
interior of the State.
Bypassin9 Of Ports Of Entry And
Linitec Enforcement Against
Intrastate Traffic Neakens Weight
Enforcement ( see pages 7 through 17)
Bypassing of ports cf entry and limited use of mobile crews weakens MVD's
enforce~ ent effort. Although 33 paved roads lead into Arizona from
surrounding states and Wexico, only 13 have ports of entry w i t h operating
scales. A1 though there i s 1 imited data on the number of trucks bypassing
the ports, studies have shown that frcm 10 percent to 33 percent of trucks
on Arizona highways are exceeding weight limits. MVD is preparing to
implement a plan to prevent bypassins of ports; however, this plan will be
limited to only the eastern border and portions of the northern border of
the State.
Better enforcement i s also necessary in the interior of the State to
monitor those truckers whc operate r. li t h i n Arizona's borders. For example,
trucks carrying concrete, garbage, and sand and gravel frequently viol ate
weight limits b u t travel only short distances and do not pass through
ports. MVD has placed a low priority on intrastate weight enforcement
activities. Officers assigned to interior based mobile crews spend 1 ess
than 50 percent of their time on weight enforcement.
Inoperative Scales A1 1 ow Many Trucks
To Pass Throuah Ports Of Entrv Without . -. -
Being weighedd( see pages 19& rough 25)
Weight enforcement i s further weakened because port scales are frequently
inoperative. Because of frequent scal e ma1 functions, more than
one- quarter m i l l ion trucks, 13 percent of the trucks that coul d have been
weighed i n fiscal year 1984- 85, were not weighed. One major cause of
scale downtime is that port scales were not designed for the high traffic
volumes a t the ports. Another problem i s that some of MVD's scale
instal 1 ations make maintenance and repair very di fficul t and costly. A
1985 ADOT report indicated that $ 600,000 was needed to repair scales with
significant maintenance problems.
MVD shoul d consider purchasing heavier scal es designed for h i g h traffic
volumes. Such scales cost approximately 10 to 15 percent more than the
scales MVD has purchased in the past.
Over1 oaded Ax1 es, Which Are Damaging And
Occur Frequently, Cannot Be Cited Under
Existing Law ( see pages 2/ through 30)
Although overweight axles are a major cause of pavement damage, effective
enforcement action cannot be taken in most cases. Truck related pavement
damage is primarily caused by the weight on each of a truck's axles.
Therefore, a truck with overloaded axles can cause damage even though i t s
gross weight nay be l e g a l . Hov! ever, cLrrent statutes require officers to
allow shifting of a load when a vehicle i s only over axle weight, not over
gross limits. If the load is shifted t o be within legal axle load l i n i t s ,
the driver cannot be cited. As a result, more than 90 percent of
Arizona's weisht enforcement viol stions between fiscal years 1982 and 19W
could not be cited.
The Legislature should consider modifying the statutes t o a1 low citations
for a1 1 overweight ax1 e violations.
More Than One Third Of All Violators Are Not
Assessed Minimum Statutory tines ( see pages 31 through 35)
The judicial system often fail s t o enforce minimum statutory penal ties
against weight violators. I~ lany courts incorrectly be1 ieve they have the
authority t o lower or suspend fines. As a result, 38 percent of
overweight violators receive fines less than the minimum fines specified
i n statutes. The average fine reduction i s $ 750 for those fines that are
reduced. This not only diminishes the deterrent effect of the penal ties,
b u t also translates into a revenue loss of approximately $ 600,000 per
year.
MVD should monitor fines imposed by the courts to ensure that the weight
fine schedule established in statutes i s applied. Noncompliance should
be reported to the Arizona Supreme Court i n order to ensure future
compl i ance.
Greater Enforcement Effort Should Be
Directed A t Trucking Companies ( see pages 37 through 42)
Enforcement efforts should be directed a t truckins companies as well as
drivers. A1 though owners and companies may be responsible for over1 oads,
they are currently not he1 d accountable for weight viol ations commi t. ted
w i t h their trucks. Under existing statutes, courts are generally
constrained to hold only the truck driver responsible for weight
violations. This has provided sufficient enforcement problems that the
City of Tempe enacted an ordinance that holds owners and drivers jointly
1 iabl e for weight citation penal ties.
Weight audits and civil penalties could also be used to direct enforcement
action toward truck companies and owners. Audits of truck company weight
records are an effective and efficient tool i n identifying companies that
repeatedly viol ate weight 1 aws. Weight audits are successfully used by
the state of Flinnesota. After repeat violators are identi fied, civil
suits can recover road damages they have caused. Texas and kiinnesota have
found that this action can be a very effective deterrent against
intentional viol ations. For example, Texas coll ected more than $ 1.3
million in damages in a seven- month period and has experienced a 30
percent reduction in gross weight violations since i t s civil program began
in late 1984. Minnesota attributes a 55 percent reduction i n overweight
trucks between fiscal years 1982- 83 and 1984- 85 to weight audits and civil
penal ties.
The Legislature should consider amending the statutes to permit courts to
hold trucking companies or individuals who own or lease trucks jointly
responsible w i t h drivers for all weight violations. In addition, the
Legislature should consider giving MVD the authority to conduct audits of
trucking company weight records. MVD shoul d consider bringing civil
action against companies that repeatedly violate weight limits.
MVD Needs Better Information For I t s
Weight Enforcement Program ( see pages 43 through 47)
MVD needs more and better data on weight citations and on the location and
movement of overweight trucks. Information on trucking company name, time
and location of violation, fine amount, and truck weight i s not presently
available. MVD needs this information to evaluate i t s effectiveness, to
enhance enforcement efforts against repeat violators, and to monitor court
adherence to statutory fines.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: BYPASSING OF PORTS CF ENTRY AND
L IllITED ENFORCEMENT AGAINST INTRASTATE
TRAFFIC WEAKENS WEIGHT ENFCRCEP1ENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MVD's Port of Entry Weight
Enforcement Needs Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
I n t e r i o r P? obile Crews Are Not S u f f i c i e n t l y U t i l i z e d . . . . . . . 12
Recomrnenda t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
FINDING 11: INOPERATIVE SCALES ALLOW MANY
TRUCKS TO PASS THROUGH PORTS OF ERTRY
NITHOUTBEINGWEIGHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Port o f Entry Scales Are Frequently Inoperative . . . . . . . . . 19
Scale Equipment and I n s t a l l a t i o n Have Been Inadequate . . . . . . 20
Needed Repairs Could Cost $ 600,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FINDING 111: CVERL@, 4DED AXLES, GIWICH ARE DAMAGING
AND OCCUR FREQUENTLY, CAtdNOT BE CITED UNDER
EXISTINGLAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
Current Statutes Are Deficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Most V i o l a t i o n s Are Rot Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FINDING I V : MORE TtjAN ONE- THIRD CF ALL VIOLATORS
ARE NOT ASSESSED bIINIblUM STATUTORY FINES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Arizona Fine Schedule Appears Adequate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
T h i r t y - e i g h t Percent o f V i o l a t o r s
Are Rot Assessed Minimum Fine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
Statutes Should Be Revised To Provide
Increased Deterrence For Repeat V i o l a t o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
TABLE OF COb! TEMTS
. Page
FINDING V: GREATER ENFORCEMENT EFFORT SHOULD BE
DIRECTED AT TRUCKING COMPANIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Companies Coul d Be Required
To Pay Weight Fines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Weight Audits Could Deter
Overweight Trucking Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C i v i l Enforcement Has Proven E f f e c t i v e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
FINDING V I : MVD NEEDS BETTER INFORMATION FOR
ITS WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C i t a t i o n Tracking System I s Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
More Neigh- In- klotion Data I s Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Mew Technology I n Neight Enforcement Operations . . . . . . . . . 51
Agency Placement o f Weight Enforcement Functions . . . . . . . . . 52
Weight Viol a t i o n Fine Structure And Penal t i e s . . . . . . . . . . 53
City And County Enforceaent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Interior Mobile Crews' Percentage of Time
Spent On Weight Enforcement Activities. . . . . . . . . . . 15
TABLE 2 - Estimated Number Of Trucks Not Weighed
FDiuse catol SYceaalres D19o8w4n- t8im5 e And 1985- 86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 3 - Arizona Axle and Gross Citations
Loads Shifted For Fiscal Years 1982, 1983 and 1984. . . . . 29
TABLE 4 - Variances In Court Adherence
To Minimum Statutory Fines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
TABLE 5 - Fine Per Pound Equivalent of Selected
Minimum Statutory Weight Fines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Road Damage Versus Axle Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIGURE 2 - Comparison Of Damage Caused
By A 4,000 Pound Automobile
And An 80,000 Pound Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FIGURE 3 - Port Of Entry And Bypass Route Locations . . . . . . . . . 8
INTRODUCTIObl AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor Generzl has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Department of Transportation i n response to a July 26, 1985,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Comi ttee. This performance
audit was conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth i n Arizona
Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2373.
T h i s is the second of several reports to be issued on the Arizona
Department of Transportation ( ADOT). The report focuses on the weight
enforcement function w i t h i n the Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) of the
Department of Transportation.
Overwei u h t Trucks Damaae Roads
Overweight trucks accelerate pavement deterioration and increase
maintenance costs. Overweight trucks exponential ly increase da~ age to
roads, thereby decreasing hishway and bridge 1 ife. A1 though studies
estimating damage costs done to roads by overweight trucks are few,
available data suggest that costs are extensive. As the State embarks on
a 20 year, $ 5 bill ion program to build new highways, protection of the
State's investment in new and existing highways through the weight
enforcement program becomes even more c r i t i c a l .
Overweicl~ t Trucks r: ultiply Highway Damage - A1 though the damage resulting
from overweight trucks cannot be precisely quantified, engineers have
shown that concentrating increasing amounts of weight on a single axle
exponenti a1 1y increases the damage t o the road. An Pmeri can Association
of State Hishway 2nd Transportation Cfficials ( AASHTO) road t e s t conducted
from 1958 to 1962 established the relationships between t r a f f i c loads and
pavement deterioraticn. * For exarxpl e, an ax1 e weighing 26,000 pounds,
which i s 30 percent more wei9ht than the legal single axle limit of 20,000
pounds, docs 200 percent more damage. Similarly, trucks over the legal
maximum gross 1 imits do considerably more damage than do those w i t h i n the
~ r A1 thoush the AASHTO report i s 24 years old, the procedures and
formulas developed are s t i l l the basis for current pavevent design.
1
legal limits. For example, an apprcximately 25 percent increase i n the
gross load of a five- axle tractor t r a i l e r from the legal limit of 80,000
to 100,000 pocnds increases pavement damage by 300 percent. Therefore, i f
all other factors remain constant, as axle weight increases the amount of 0
pavement damage increases exponentially and the expected l i f e of the
pavement decreases. This results i n the need for additional
rehabilitation funds. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the relationship of axle
weight to pavement damage for both single and tandem axles. 4
FIGURE 1
( 1 Relative carnage i s cased on an 18,000 pound single axle and a
32,500 pound tandem axle, each causing a damage factor of 1 . O .
The relative daiila~ e factor represents the nu~ ber of 18, CGO pounc!
single axles that would have to pass over the road t o cause
equivalent dama~ e.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Axle Weight
( T h o u s a n d s of Pounds) !
Source: Prepared by Auditor Generzl staff frcm information provided by 4
ADOT Hichways Division.
Even trucks w i t h i n 1 egal weight 1 imi t s damage pavement considerably more
than automobil es. I t takes approximately 9,600 automobiles t o damaae the
pavement to the same extent as one 80,000 pound tractor t r a i l e r . The
equivalent damage caused by ax1 e distribution of a five- axle, 80,000 pcund
tractor t r a i l e r i s displayed i n Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
COMPARISON OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY A 4,000 POUND
AUTOI4OBILE AND AN 80,000 POUt. ID TRUCK
TRUCK AXLE IS'EIGHTS
EQUIVALENT NUh1RER
OF AUTOS
P - -
5 AXLE TRACTOR TRAILER
-.
@@ I
t t t
12 non + 31 no0
t t
3.1 0: IO = 60 000
POUPJDS POIJNDS POllNDS POUNU)
500 + 4 r ~ r ~ 0 3.:, 50 z 9600
AUTOS AUiOS AUrOS AUTOS
Source: Comptroller General of the United States, 1979. " Excessive Truck
Weicht: An Extensive Burden We Can No Longer Support." Repcrt to
the Congress of the United States. General Accounting Office,
Washington, D. C., p. 23.
In addition to paveriient deterioration, another important consi deraiicn is
the s t r e s s pl aced on bridges by overl oaded vehicl es. Over1 oaded vehi c1 es
cause s t r e s s to b r i d ~ es tructures, decreasing useful l i f e .
Overweight Trucks Increase Hi chvtay Costs - A1 though few studies have
been done on damage costs due t o overweight trucks, some cost estimates
have been made. Fcr exanple, i n a 1983 report the U. S. Department of
Transportation's Inspector General estimated the annual cost of
deterioration to interstate highb! ays to be in excess of $ 500 n i l l i o n . The
Federal Hi~ hrtay Adrninistr2tion's December 1985 " Overweight Vehicles -
Penalties & Permits, Fn Inventory Of Stzte Practices" report s t a t e s t h a t
this estimate i s probably conservative, since the cost data were based on
trucks ~ i e i c h e d , :; hich i s not necessarily representative of trucks actcally
using the hishways. ) lo studies hzve been done in Arizcna to estimate
deterioration costs due to overweight trucks.*
However, deterioration of Arizona roads due to overweight trucks i s
acknowledged. According to Highways Division engineers, they recognize
general types of damage ( r u t t i n g and grooves) caused by overweight
trucks. For exampl e, the fol 1 owing 1 ocations displ ay general pavement
damage caused by overweight trucks.
e the Durango and 19th Avenue intersection
@ the pavement around the scales
o the freeway exit ramps
s U. S. Highway 666 between 1- 10 and U. S. Highway 70
s U. S. Highway 70 from Safford to Duncan
In addition, the Materials Section of the Highways Division estimated that
premature deterioration of several highway sections built i n 1979 cost
more than $ 10 million to repair. These sections had design 1 ives of ten
years, b u t deteriorated and failed within two years. According to a
pavement engineer, although this deterioration cannot be wholly attributed
to overweight trucks, i t s premature and unique nature a1 lows a clear 1 ink
t o be drawn t o overweight trucks. In 1 ight of the State's current program
to build more than $ 5 bill ion of highways over the next 20 years i n
Maricopa County a1 one, any similar failures coul d have enormous financial
consequences.
* An estimate of dama~ e costs t o Arizona roads can be calculated. A
transportation expert from Austin, Texas, has performed such
calculations for the state of Texas. An enoineering firr?, ARE Inc.,
has recently completed for the Hiclhway Division of ADOT a study
determining the effects of changes i n truck gross weights, axle weight
distribution, t i r e pressures, t i r e footprints and axle configuration
on pavement performance. In addition, ARE related these effects t o
impacts on ADOT's pavement design procedures. This information with
additional information on the conditions of various classes of Arizona
roadways could be entered i n t o an ARE developed computer program to
estimate statewide damage costs due t o overloaded trucks using Arizona
roads.
Wei cht Enforcement Proaram
To protect the State highway system from damages due to overweight
vehicles, MVD conducts a weight enforcement program. The MVD weight
enforcement operation is comprised of 18 ports of entry and six interior
based State mobile crews. The ports of entry are permanent stations a t
State borders. The ports of entry are currently used to prevent
overweight trucks from coming into the State. MVD plans to enhance its
port operations by keeping i n - and outbound lanes a t its major ports open
24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mobile crews currently monitor trucks
traveling w i t h i n the State. MVD also plans to add mobile crews to work
around six of its smaller ports and to increase the number of interior
mobile crews from six to nine.
A u d i t scope
Our audit of the Department of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division was
limited to the weight enforcement function w i t h i n the Field Services
Section. The report presents detailed findings in the following areas.
0 Adequacy of mobile weight enforcement operations
0 Problems w i t h port of entry scales
Limited enforcement against overweight ax1 es
0 Need to increase adherence to statutory fine structure
0 Need to direct enforcement e f f o r t a t trucking companies
0 Keed for an improved weight enforcement information system
Limited time was devoted to addressing the 12 statutory sunset factors.
Sunset factors will be addressed on a Departmental basis a t the completion
of the series of ADOT audits.
This audit was conducted i n accordance w i t h generally accepted
governmental auditing standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to the Director and
staff of the Department of Transportation for their cooperation and
assistance during the course of our audit.
- F. I- N -- D ING I
BYPASSING OF POR75 ( 11: ENTRY AND LIMITED ENFORCEMENT
AGAINST INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WEAKENS WEIGHT ENFOECEMENT
The Arizona Ilepartmer~ t o f Tr- anspnrtation ( ADOT) Motor Vehicle Division's
( MVD) mobile Crew wel: cjht ~ 1? f66(. rlil;~- arc1tt ivity needs to be strengthened.
The Diwision'l- port uf- enrry ~ e i y h te nf~ rcernerrt needs enhancement t o curb
bypassins of the ports. Irr addit ion, MVD's interior mobile crews are not
effectively utilized to deter violations by trucks just traveling in the
interior of the State.
- M V- D- k P o r- t Of E n t r y Weight
Enforcement Needs Enmeken t
Because of the importance of weight enforcement, MVD's weight enforcement
program a t the ports of entry needs to be strengthened. Evidence indicates
that overweight trucks bypass the ports of entry. Other states have
controls t o address port bypassing. Although MVD has developed a plan t o
curtail port bypassing, the plan will not address the problem on a
statewide basis.
- F- i x-- e d ports can ht* ltl~ p. r"- i- s se- d - FlV5 ~ f f i c i a l sa cknokiledqe that bypass routes
~ xis" L The f u l l extent of bypassing i s unknown, b u t two studies c o n d u ~ t r ~ ~
$ 0 ckac4c- k cizt~ ip'i iaa~ cci w i t h r; aotr;~ r c? rrier regulations found 6 to 14 percalk
2 T r i i f f i i lr) tpi",~ sinq prrv t 5. Tn acidi tion, various studies show t h a t
r9vcrwcight xr L L ~ S6) - F i'ntf'! i n 3 P r i t o n a ,
& nYO O ~ ~ E PAYBO T p ~ r ~ o r ~ r rdeclk nowledge that bypass routes exist.
At crirdiirg So P d l O l k 1585 "" Vtlricle Size and Weight Enf~ rcerment" report, 33
gdvecrl roads lead irrko Arizona from surrounding states ant! Mexico. O f the
33 roads, uailj 1 5 1 i ~ i 3 \ 9p~ t lr~ s. Further, only 13 of the ports have scales.
7b3erefor@, t;.. vskars a. iiTki G I W ~ ? Y ~ O a~ r~ e~ Sa ble t o avoid roads with port
E L E- ls" ge, rm3e c!~ c? k:. a tkii- I r r d t i i ~ no f E1VD's ports of entry and some o f
tllc b ~ p d s s n.~:~ t2- t. s,
FIGURE 3
PORTS OF ENTRY AND BYPASS ROUTE LOCATIONS
Q - Paroer, t odefn eontetsr yt <, wo i t, h,, tsic. ales ( Note: the symbol i n the Yuma
0 - Port o f e n t r y without scales
- Bypass route ( Note: Locations are approximate because
t h i s map does not show a l l roads).
Source: Prepared by Auditor General s t a f f from information provided by
MVD.
Known bypass routes include:
e Westbound State highway 61 into the State to northbound U. S.
Highway 666 to 1- 40. This route bypasses the 24- hour Sanders
port.
e Westbound State Highway 264 past the b! indow Rock port, which $ oes
not have a scale and i s not open 24 hours, then south bound on
U. S. Highway 191. This route also bypasses the Sanders port.
e Westbound U. S. Highway 70 past the Duncan port when closed t o
U. S. Highway 666 southbound to 1- 10. This rcute bypasses the
24- hour San Simon port.
6 Giss Parkway i n Yuma. This route bypasses the 24- hour Yuma port.
e The frontage road behind the Yuma port. This route a1 so bypasses
the Ytima port.
ADCT conducted two studies addressing bypassing of ports to circtimvent
commercial vehicle registration, audit use fuel tax and motor carrier
tax. These studies ( the Northeast and Southwest Projects ) were performed
t o assess the losses to the Highway User Revenue Fund due to motor carrier
noncompl i ance.
The Northeast Project, conducted in Movember 1983, monitored truck traffic
on five of the 13 routes in the area without ports." 1,120 trucks or
buses went through the five checkpoints. This represents 6 percent of the
20,110 trucks that v; ent through the four ports in the area ( Springerville,
Teec Nos Pos, Sanders and San S i ~ o n ) a nd the checkpoints during the same
time.
The Scuthwest Project was conckicteci in Yuma County in April and May 1985.
Six of eight checkpoint locations without ports were staffed 24 hours a
day for nine days. 1,3C9 motor carriers went through these six sites.
This represents 12 percent of the 11,021 trucks or buses that went throuoh
the three ports in the area ( Ehrenberg, Parker and Yuoa) and the
checkpoints.
* This area encompassed Sprincerville t o the south, Teec Nos Pos to the
north, Kayenta to the west and the Arizona State line to the east.
Although these two projects indicate bypassing of ports, not all trucks
that bypass are overweight. No studies have been conducted t o detect
overrveight trucks bypassing ports, h u t evidence from other studies shows
that overwei ~ h t trucks travel in t o Arizona . The evidence of overwei ah t
trucks comes from various studies.
@ Transportation Planning Division ( TPD) found in i t s 1982 biennial
count and weighing a sample of trucks that 13 percent of the
trucks in the sample were over the State's weight limits.
o TPD's 1984 truck samples indicate that 13 percent were in
violation of the State's weight laws.
e ADOT Productivity Resource Elanaaement System ( PRMS) reported from
the Southwest Project performed in 1985 that 31 percent of the
trucks bypassing the Yuma port on westbound Giss Parkway were
overseight.*
@ In 1985 TPD performed two weigh- in- motion ( WIH) studies. The
data eathered on 1- 40 and 1- 10 indicate that more than one- third
of the trucks wei9hed were over the maximum gross weight lirrit of
80,000 pounds.** The 1- 40 study also shows that an even higher
percentage of trucks exceeded axle weight 1 imi t s and violated the
bridge formula.
Other states have controls t o address bypassing - MVD does not currently
have a program to address the problem of bypassing. Other states address
the problem thro~ lgh the use of portable scales. According to a 1979
General Accounting Off ice report: " State enforcement official s be1 ieve
that € 5 percent of all persanent scales are easily or very easily bypassed
and only 11 percent \; ere rated as very difficult or impossible to
bypass."*** A Transportaticn Research Bozrc! report states that "[ Flor the
* The PRBlS report noted that nct all the overkeioht trucks rrould be
interstate - some \ iould be local Yuma traffic. The data was
collected with weigh- in- motio~ ecuipment.
** TPD conducted these stuc'ies with i t s high speed 1! It1 scales. These
scales represent a relatively new technology that a l l c ~ ~ trsu cks to
be weighed at hicrhway speeds. bfVD has questicneo the accuracy of
the findings based on horr the blIM scales rrere calibrated. Although
MVD cfficials agree there is an oversieight problem in Arizona, i t
questions the high proportion noted in these two stueies.
*** Comptroller General of the United States, 1979. Excessive Trvck
Ideisht: An Extensive G~ rr'cn \ le Can E! o Lonaer S~ lpport. Report to the
Congress of the United States. General Accounting Qffice,
Washington, D. C., p. 71.
permanent weigh stations to be most effective, ( they) must be supported by
the roving portable crews in order to reduce the chance of bypassin?
trucks. "* Several states use portable crews as part of their port
operations. For example, Oregon has portable crews as part of the port
staff. The Oregon portable crews are assigned to locations based on truck
vol ume inf~ rmation provided by state and 1 ocal law enforcement officers.
In addition, assignments are based on certain types of haulers known to
run overloaded trucks, such as gravel and lumber haulers, as well as
seasonal activity information. Iowa also uses portable crews i n
conjunction w i t h i t s permanent weigh stations. Whenever a permanent weigh
station i s open, Iowa has officers patrolling bypass routes around the
weigh station.
MVD's plan to address bypassing will be limited - MVD is taking steps to
address bypassing of ports. However, the implementation of the plan is
limited to the eastern and northern borders of the State.
MVD plans to curtail operations a t six smaller, minor ports - five on the
eastern bcrder and one on the northern border. These six smaller ports
will operate at reduced hours and each will become a base for one mobile
crew. These mobile crews will work the highways immediately adjacent t o
their ports of entry.
Since MVD has not recently patrolled bypass routes, this limited
implementation will strengthen weicht enforcement operations at the two
major eastern ports ( San Sinon and Sanders) and one northern port ( Page).
However, the rest of the ports ( Ehrenberg, Kingman, Nogales, Parker, San
Luis, St. Georce ( Utah), Topok and Yuma) will continue t o operate without
mobile crews to monitor or patrol their bypass routes.
Moreover, due t o weight enforcement's low priority within MVD, mobile crew
activity of those included i n the area. port system may be limited. For
* Transportation Research Ecard, 1981 . Flati onal Cooperative H i ghway
Research Program Synthesis of H i ohway Practice 82: Criteria for
Eva1 uation of Truck Wei 9h t Enforcement Programs. Transportation
Research Board, National Academy of Science, Washington, D. C., p. 32.
exampl e, driver's 1 icense functions continue to have a higher priority
t h a n does wei~ ht enforcement. ( for further discussion see page 14).
Interior Mobile Crews Are Not
N
In addition t o strengthening i t s port weight enforcement, MVD needs to
more fully utilize i t s interior mobile weight crews. Currently, the
Division's weight enforcement efforts t o deter overweipht trucks within
the interior of the State ( such as urban areas) are inadequate. Interior
mobile crews are necessary to ensure compliance by trucks driven only
within the State. A1 though the interior mobile crews perform a valuable
function, their time dedicated to weight enforcement activities has been
limited. In addition, the mobile crews do not perform weight enforcement
operations at night.
MVD has interior mobile crews assigned by zone working out of Flagstaff,
Phoenix and Tucson. The crews ' wei q h t enforcement activities include
patrol 1 ing and monitoring roads. Iqlobil e crews use portable wheel weigher
scales* and semi- portabl e ramp scales in their weighing inspections.
Portable wheel r ~ e i ~ h e rasr e used by mobile crews in patrollins and
stopping trucks suspected of beins overuei o h t based on probable cause. **
Semi- portable ramp scales are set up in one location usually for a few
hours. Mobile crek~ sm ay weigt~ all trucks within a two ~ i l era dius of the
semi- portable scale or flay over only those they suspect to te in
* Wheel weigher scilles are a b ~ u t the size of hathroom scales. Each
weighs individual tires or sets of adjacent t i r e s , and they are used
in sets of f o ~ r . Eased on national data, wheel iieighers weigh the
fewest numbers of trucks b u t have the hichest citation rate. The •
hisher citation rate is due to the selective ~ eighinc of suspected
tr~ clts.
** Frobabl e cause i s based on officers' knowledge of horr an overv: eipht
truck may ride, certain coapmies knolrn to rirn overloaded trucks, and
type of ccmrnodity carried. According t o a lC' 7': Government Accounting
Off ice report, state official s identified typical cargoes found an
overvei cli t trr~ cks. The typiccl carcces rzere nostly " dense, beavy
commodi ties , such as steel , agricul tural proc'ucts and petrol eum
products. "
violation. b? VD's interior rxobile crews also schedule weight inspections
with safety and weight inspection operations of other jurisdictions. The
mobile crews ' other re1 ated activities incl ude checking registrations,
operating permits, diesel fuel tax accounts, and oversize/ weight permits.
In addition, they perform other field services activities, such 2s school
bus inspections and driver's 1 icense tasks.
Mobile Crews Are Heeded For Weight Enforcement - Interior mobile weight
enforcement crews are necessary to deter overweight trucks traveling
within the state. A1 though the ports and mobile crews patrolling bypass
routes are good deterrents for trucks traveling i n and out of Arizona,
they do not catch overloaded trucks traveling only within the state.
According to a 1979 GAO report, approximately half the annual truck travel
i s on urban roads.* This urban traffic includes freight movements between
points in the same area and from outside the urban area.
Several MVD officials believe that the real prcblem of overweipht trucks
is not with those hauling interstate, b u t with those trucks travel ing only
within the s t a t e ' s borc'ers. The 1979 GAG report identified types of
trucl< s and commodities that rur; overweight and tend to travel only short
distances.** They are dump t r ~ c k s haul ins sand, ? ravel or excavation
materials t o and from construction sites; concrete mixers; and garbage
trucks. Accorcli nc t o Federal Hi ~ hway Admini stratior: officials, garbage
truck ~ anufacturers admit that many garbage trucks w i t h compactor units
are actually overweight when they come off the assembly line.
Data from Phoenix area cities indicate that a substantial number of trucks
in this urban area are overweight. For example, during sporadic selective
weight enforcement operations,*** Tempe and Mesa found - 74 and - 35 percent,
respectively, of ttie trucks weighed t o be over the State's weight limits.
* Cc~ ptrolle r Generai o f t k e Uni tecl States, 1979, p. 18.
** Co~ ptroller General of the United States, 1979, pp. 19- 20.
*** Selective enforcevent consists of on1 y creighing trucks suspected o f
bein9 overweight. Therefore, a higher portion of those weighed under
a selective enforcement operaticn \! ill be overkleight than if 211
trucks are wei ghed.
Phoenix, which has a daily selective enforcement operation, cited 16
percent of the trucks weighed for violation of weight laws. Since Arizona
has no fixed scales on roads in the interior of the State, mobile crews
are essential in enforcing the State Is motor carrier weight statutes.
Mobile Crews Have Spent Limited Time On Weight Enforcement - A1 though the
MVD mobile crews' primary duty i s weight inspections, these officers
actually have spent less than 50 percent of their time in this function.
Between October 1985 and March 1986 all crews spent only 49 percent of
their avail able time performing weight enforcement tasks. As shown i n
Table 1 ( page 15), the crews weight enforcement activity varies among the
zones. For example, during four of the six months analyzed, the northern
zone crew rarely performed weight enforcement activities. The central
zone weight enforcement activity has fluctuated, b u t ranged from 42 to 100
percent. The southern zone ' s weight enforcement activity rangec' from 25
to 56 percent.
The mobile crews are assigned to other enforcement tasks because MVD's
management gives 1 ower priority to weight enforcement. MVD management has
stated that driver's 1 icense and other fie1 d enforcement functions receive
more pub1 ic attention than do overweight concerns. For this reason, the
mobile weight enforcement crews, which are considered to be the most
flexible group within field services, are assigned t o other functicns as
needed.
TABLE ' 1
IFCTERICRF IOBILE CREWS~ PERCEMTAGEO F TIME SPEEIT()~
ON idEIGHT EFFORCEFIENT ACTIVITIES
Month And Mobile Crew Number Of Authorized Hours Spent On Percentage
Year Location Hours Available Weight A c t i v i t i e s Of Time
Oct. 1985 Central 588 41 9 71 %
Southern 882 250 28
tdorthern 294 17 - 6
OCTOBER TOTAL 1,764 686 39
Nov. 1985 Central 556
Southern 834
Northern 278
NOVEMBER TOTAL 1,668
Dec. 1985 Central 588
Southern 882
Ijorthern 294
DECEMBER TOTAL 1,764
Jan. 1986 Central 588
Southern 882
Northern 294
JANUARY TOTAL 1,764
Feb. 1986 Central 556 522 04
Southern 834 356 4 3
Northern 278 5 1 18
1,668
-
FEBRUARY TOTAL 929 5 6
March 1986 Central 620
Southern 9 30
Northern 3' 1 0
MARCE TOTAL 1,860
GRAND TOTAL 10,488 -- 5,122 -- 4 3
( 1 ) H~ urs a v a i l a b l e f o r \! eight crew operations were obtained by
developing an average mcnthly productive hours based on ADOT1s
Performance Control System ( PeCos) annual productive hours
cal cul a t i o n . The PeCos c a l c u l a t i o n d e l e t e s annual , sick and
other miscellaneous leave from annual hours. Holiday hours f o r
each month with a holiday were subtracted from t h i s monthly
average. The remaining monthly prcductive hours were then
multiplied by the number o f a u t h o r i z e d mobile crew o f f i c e r s f o r
each zone t o o b t a i n t h e number of authorized hours a v a i l a b l e .
Downtime due t o breakdown of s c a l e s or vacant p o s i t i o n s was not
taken i n t o consideration.
Source: MVD zone a r e a s u p e r v i s o r s and region manager, Department of
Transportation 15
Some states assign mobile crews solely t o weight enforcement activities.
For example, Arkansas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Minnesota have full - time
mobile scale teams whose primary responsi bil ity i s weight enforcement. If
other responsibilities are assigned, they consist of other motor carrier
activities such as truck safety and registration inspections. In
addition, to maintain weight enforcement as a top priority, other states
have control led staff assignment by 1 imiting the area supervisor's
authority to transfer personnel among functions.
Mobile Crews Rarely Do Night Inspections - The mobile crews rarely perform
truck inspections a t night. Although a TPD study showed a higher
percentage of overweisht trucks traveling between 11 p. m. and 6 a. m.,
ni g h t inspections are rare1 y performed. Night inspections have not been
scheduled due to the lack of radio contact during these hours and, in the
past, the lack of generators for 1 ighting. A1 though the crews now have a
generators, niqht inspections are s t i l l not beins scheduled. Night
inspections are considered t o be particularly dangerous because MVD
officers are not armed and do not have an adequate radio communication
system.* To counter these safety problems the mobile crews could try t o a
coorclinate night inspections in conjunction v: ith LIPS or other law
enforcement agencies. The mobile crews are safer wcrking with other law
enforcement agents who are artxed and have access to 24- hour communication
systems. However, a recent attempt t o coordinate a niaht inspection with a
DPS failed because of schedul ing confl icts.
Several states perfcrm ni sht inspectior'ls. r'! i c h t inspections are! perceive+
as an i~ portant deterrence t o overweicht trucks. In fact, a 19P1
Transportation Research Board study reccsmcnfied that a l l s t a t e s consider
a
establ ishinc nicht r ~ e i ~ h i nisn specticns, even if such ir? spections arc
* The F? VD radio system i s wznned only durinc the eioht- hcur day shift.
In the past DPS monitored ! lVD1s frecjuency 24 hours a day, b u t this was
discontinued approxinately ten years ago when PPS switched t o a hioh
band frequency. The low frequency radio band used by MVD causes a
great c'eal of interference and transmission problems. The system' s
poor qua1 ity 1 imits i t s usefulness to the mobile crews.
a
scheduled randomly.* Two states - Florida and Arkansas - employ mobile
crews on a 24 hour basis. Other states schedule irreoular shifts, thereby
using mobile crews at various times and days.
CONCLUSIONS
MVD's weight enforcement activity is inadequate. The Division's port of
entry enforcement needs enhancement to curtai 1 bypassing. In addition,
the Division's interior mobile crews need to be more effectively
depl oyed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. MVD should use mobile crews statewide to ensure random monitoring of
all bypass routes into the state.
2. t4VD should increase i t s use of mobile crews to conduct weight
enforcement activities for intrastate t r a f f i c .
3. KVD should routinely schedule night inspections by mobile crews.
Noreover, MVD should more closely coordinate with DPS the scheduling
of night inspections to ensure CPS presence during such operations.
* Transportation Research Bcard, 1981, p. 44.
17
FINDING I1
INOPERATIVE SCALES ALLOW MANY TRUCKS TO PASS
THROUGH PORTS OF ENTRY WITHOUT BEING WEIGHED
In addition te the problems of overweight trucks bypassing scales at Motor
Vehicle Division ( MVD) ports of entry, inoperative scales at MVD ports of
entry weaken weight enforcement operations. Scales a t the major ports of
entry are frequently inoperative. As a result, 13 percent of the trucks
t h a t could be weighed are not weighed. One major cause of frequent
downtime is scales that are not designed for the high volume of t r a f f i c a t
the ports. As much as $ 600,000 may be required to repair the existing
port of entry scales.
Port Of Entry Scales Are
breauentl v Ino~ erative
During fiscal year 1984- 85, more than one- quarter million trucks, or 13
percent of the trucks that could have been weighed, were not weiahed
because port scal es were inoperative. The probl ems with inoperative
scales were particularly extensive a t two major ports. The Sanders scale,
which \: eighs an average of 1,382 trucks per day, was inoperative a total
of 236 days between July 1984 and April 1986 ( 35 percent). The Ehrenberg
scale, which c~ eichs an average o f 631 trucks per day, was inoperative 105
days ( 16 percent). In addition, the Kingman port of entry scale on Route
93 has had major maintenance problems, a'i thouah i t handles a 1 ower volume
of traffic. Between July 1984 and April 1986 the scale has been
inoperative 156 days ( 23 percent). Table 2 ( page 20) shows the estimated
number of trucks not weighed due to scale downtime during this period.
PORT OF ENTRY
Sanders
Ehrenberg
K i ngman
Topock
Y uma
Nogal es
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TRUCKS NOT WEIGHED
DUE TO SCALE DOWNTIME
FISCAL YEARS 1984- 85 AND 1985- 86( l )
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF TRUCKS NOT
WEIGHED 1984- 85( 2)
TOTAL
ESTIMATED MUMBER
OF TRUCKS NOT
WEIGHEE 1985- 86(~)
( 1 1 The data collected for fiscal year 1985- 86 includes only the
f i r s t ten months of the year.
( 2) The estifiated number of trucks not weighed was calculated by
multiplying averase daily t r a f f i c i n the port by the number of
days the scale was down.
Source: Prepared by Auditor General s t a f f from WVD port of entry data
Scale Equipment And Installation
Nave Been Inadequate
The current prcblens with inoperative scales a t the ports of entry have
resulted, a t least i n part, because MVD has not effectively selected or
installed some of i t s scale equipment. Several of the major ports of
entry have scales that are not desicned to withstand high volumes of heavy
truck t r a f f i c . Additionally, some of the scale installations have
created obstacles for proper scal e maintenance.
Some port of entry scales are n o t adequately desicned - Scales are not
designed for extensive weight enforcement operations. A substantial
number of trucks pass throush the major ports of entry daily. For
example, the Ehrenberg and Sanders ports generally weigh 350 to 1,500
trucks per day. Scales that are subjected to such volume should be
designed to endure excessive appl ication.
Arizona uses commercial motor t. rcck scales for enforcement purposes.
Commercial scales are generally 1 ight to medium dlrty scales used i n
trucking companies and mining operations. Two scale companies have
indicated that several MVD scales are not designed for the high volumes of
t r a f f i c they weigh. For exampl e, one scal e manufacturer indicate6 that
the basic design of the Sanders scale appears inadequate for the volume of
t r a f f i c a t that location. In addition, the same msnufacturer pointed out
that the Kingman s c a l e ' s existing structure is insufficient for the load
being applied. Continual high stress* on the scales has resulted i n
maintenance problems such as cracked deckings, cracked steel supports and
unstable 1 oad cell s. **
Heavier qual i ty scal e equipment i s avai 1 abl e. These scales are referred
to as being of railroad qual ity. A railroad qual i t y scale differs from a
commercial scale because i t contains more structural steel support and is
designed to endure much heavier truck loads and volumes of t r a f f i c . In
contrast, a normal commercial scale is senerally not able to withstand the
high volumes and heavy truck loads encountered i n weight enforcement
operations.
The difference in cost betvieen a railroad qual ity scale and a commercial
scale i s minimal - approximately 10 to 15 percent. The extra cost i s
basically fcr the additional steel to strengthen the scale. For example,
the cost of commercial motor truck scales most recently purchased by PlVD
for i t s major ports has ranged from $ 67,000 to $ 92,000. Therefore,
r a i l road qual i ty scales for these ports woul d have cost approximate1 y
$ 74,000 to $ 1 06,000. A1 thoush additional funding for scale purchases
would be needed, the long term operating costs should decrease
significantly.
Poor communication and budgetary constraints have affected the qual i ty of
* Another problem that nay be exacerbating scale deficiencies is trucks
moving over the scales a t too great a speed. Trucks often travel over
port scales \! i thout stoppi nc. Scale company representatives have
indicated that i f this occurs too often and a t too great a speed,
scal e damaae w i 11 resul t.
** Load cells are the devices that measure the weight of a truck as i t
passes over a scale.
some scales MVD has purchased in the past. MVD relies on Highways
Division engineers to provide the expertise to determine the type of
equipment needed. According to a Highways engineer, they must work within
parameters provided by MVD when preparing speci fications. Parameters
involved in a scale project include the scale type that MVD wants and the
funds available to purchase the scale. However, communication between MVD
and Highways engineers regarding the specifications appears to have been
1 imited.* Further, money available for past scale purchases has been
1 imi ted. Consequent1 y, l4VD has purchased 1 i ghter duty scales.
Steps can be taken to upgrade MVD's most recently purchased scales which
have not yet been installed. MVD plans to install these scales a t the
Ehrenberg port of entry soon.** An ADOT structural engineer indicated
that these scales are structurally the best desi~ ned scales FlVD has
purchased. However, MVD weight enforcement personnel and one scale
manufacturer have expressed concerns t h a t even these scales may not be of
sufficient quality to withstand the high volumes of heavy traffic. MVD's
scale technician has pointed out some actions that can be taken to upgrade
them. For example, heavy duty load cells would increase their weighing
capacity. A1 so, reinforced we1 ding of the scal es ' understructures and the
addi t i c n of structural cross beam ir~ oudl improve scal e structure. T. 1VD ' s
scale technician has estimated the cost to upgrade one scale t o be
approximately $ 4,000. Any decision t o upgrade the Ehrenberg scales should
be made before they are installed since improvements will be much more
di fficul t and expensive t o imp1 ement after instal 1 ation.
* Communications between IIVD and the Hi cjhways Division appear 1 imited.
In discussions with PlVD personnel and Highways engineers, i t became
clear that 1 i t t l e communication has occ~ lrred and each Division i s not
completely aware of the other's activities and requirements. A1 though
some ~ eetings have occurred between rlVD personnel and ADOT engineers,
they appear not to have involved !! VD staff that are most knowledgeable
about the scales. Consequently input from these staff cay not have
been incorporated into scale project plans.
** These scales \\; ere purchased in 1984 b u t installation was initially
delayed due t o lack of funds. Later delays were due t o studies of the
viabil i ty of incorporating weigh- in- motion techno1 ogy at the Ehrenberg
port.
Scale instal 1 aticns have created obstacl es for scal e maintenance - In
addition, shortcorrings in scale instal 1 ations have compounded the problem
of inadequate scales. MVD's scale technician has indicated that i t i s
difficult to properly maintain and inspect some scales because their
installation provides 1 i t t l e or no access for maintenance purposes. Poor
accessi bil i ty can resul t in excessive accumul ati on of debri s under a scal e
because i t is difficult to properly clean. In addition, improper drainage
in some scale pits allows water to accumulate. Excessive accurrulation of
water and debris can seriously damage or destroy a scale. For proper
maintenance and inspection of these poorly installed scales, they would
have to be hoisted out of their pits. This i s generally a major and
costly operation requiring a large crane.
Needed Repai rs Coul d
Cost $ 600.000
Because of the conditicn of the scales, a significant amount of money and
additional maintenance resources are needed for an adequate weight
enforcenent operati on. A 1985 report prepared by ADOT i denti fi ed $ 600,000
needed t o repair tile port of entry scales with significant maintenance
problem noted at that time.* These estimated costs illustrate the extent
of repairs required to up~ rade some scales to suitable operating
condition. Scaie manufacturers and PlVD weight enforcement personnel agree
that a significant amount of money i s needed to adequately repair scEe
port of entry scales. For example, both Sanders east- and westbound
scales are in need of a ccmplete renovation. The Sanders eastbound scale
was purchased in 1981, and i s now totally inoperative because i t has been
stripped of parts to repair the westbound scale. As an a1 ternative, FlVD
could consider rep1 acina son; e of i t s comercia1 scales v: i t h rail road
qua1 ity scales. MVD needs t o analyze the long- term costs and benefits of
purchasing new scales versus repairing existing
* This amount excludes funds needed to repair the Ehrenberg scale since
i t will be replaced in the near future.
2 3
ones. A1 though the short- tern ccsts t o repair existing scales would be
less, significant savings may be realized in the long run i f the least
serviceable scal es are rep1 aced. The purchase of rail road qual i ty scal es
could reduce the amount of time and money spent on maintenance and
repairs. In addition, costs due t o road damage could be reduced and
overweight fine revenues could be increased because more trucks will be
weighed.
CONCLUSIONS
MVD port of entry scale difficulties have hampered i t s weight enforcement
operation. Scales a t some of the major ports have frequently been
inoperative. Frequent downtine of scales has, in part, resulted from
inadequate scales and scale instal 1 ations. MVD has not coordinated
effectively with ADOT engineers to develop acceptable specifications for
scales. MVD will have to determine whether repair or replacement i s the
most cost- effective approach.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PiVD should consider investing in heavier duty, railroad qual ity sczle
equipment in any future purchases. Factors t o be considered in
determining the type of scale needed include daily volume of traffic
being weighed and the type of trucks that will be weiahed.
2. When designing ftiture scale installations, MVD ~ eeds to ensure that
access for maintenance and proper drainage are taken into
consideration.
3. PiVD sho~ lld analyze the long- term costs and benefits of purchasing new
scale equipment versus repairing i t s existing static scales. MVD
should then request funds t o r e ~ i a c e or restore scales t o operational
1 eve1 s.
4. MVD should coordinate more closely with Highways Division engineers
and develop adequate specifications for scale equipment and
instal l ations. If i t i s determined necessary after discussions with
engineers, the new Ehrenberg scales should be reinforced before they
are installed.
FINDING I11
OVERLOADED AXLES, WHICH ARE DAMAGING AND OCCUR
FREQUENTLY, CANNOT BE CITED UNDER EXISTING LAW
Although overweight axles are a major cause of pavement damage, effective
enforcement action cannot be taken i n most cases. Current statutes do not
allow a citation to be issued i f a driver can bring the axle weight under
legal limits by shifting the truck's load. As a result, more than 90
percent of Arizona's weight viol ations during a recent three- year period
could not be cited.
Over1 oaded ax1 es damage and decrease pavement 1 i fe. Pavement damage
caused by a truck is primarily determined by the weight on each axle.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Official s road t e s t
data collected from 1958 to 1962 show that increasing the weight on an
axle exponentially increases pavement damage, and the expected l i f e of the
pavement correspondingly decreases ( see Introduction and Background, page
1 1. For example, an axle load weighing 26,000 pounds, which is 30 percent
more weight than the legal single axle 1 imi t of 20,000 pounds, does 200
percent more damage than the legal load. Therefore, a truck that has a
legal gross weight b u t has an overloaded axle s t i l l causes pavement damage
and decreases pavement serviceabil i ty and 1 ife.
Current Statutes
Are D e t ~ c ~ e n t
Under current law, the most common weight violation - overweight axles -
cannot be cited i n most cases. Arizona Revised Statutes ( A . R . S . )
S28- 1031 . E requires officers to allow shifting of a load when a vehicle is
only over axle weight not over gross limits. If the load i s shifted t c be
w i t h i n legal axle load 1 imits, the driver cannot be cited.
Although s h i f t i ~ g weight off overloaded axles i s desirable, i t may not
always prevent pavement damage. MVD personnel stated that some truckers
readjust their 1 oads after they are weighed. Some trucks are equipped w i t h
one or more variable load ax1 es bihich allow easy redistribution of
weight." Therefore, truckers can comply w i t h an o f f i c e r ' s orders to s h i f t
axle loads and l a t e r easily r e s h i f t t o i l l e g a l loadings. Truckers do this
because i t allows their trucks to ride more smoothly.
Most Violations
Are Not Cited
Because of this deficiency i n existing law, action cannot be taken against
most of Arizona's weight violations. As shown i n Table 3, 94 percent of
Arizona's weight violations detected from 1982 to 1984 could not be
cited.** Of the 64,150 violations that occurred during this period,
60,247 involved overweight axles that were shifted, but no citation was
i ssued.
* A. R. S. $ 28- 1009. E allows a vehicle to have variable load axles, h u t
prohibits the shiftin2 of axle weights ~ vhile the truck i s moving.
This statute recluires that certain equipment be located outside the
truck cab so the driver cannot vary axle weights during transport.
However, according to Flotor Vehicle Division weight enforcement
officers, many drivers are s t i l l able to easily redistribute their
lcads, even while i n their cabs.
** Arizona has a relatively low citation issuance r a t e , p a r t i a l l y as an
outcome of the statutory r e s t r i c t i o n s on axle citations. Although
Arizona ranked 19th naticnally in total number of trucks weighed i n
1984, i t ranked 40th in number of axle citations and 49th i n total
weight citations written. However, i n 1984 Arizona a1 lowed 21,023
load s h i f t s that were n o t cited. Arizona ranked 5th i n the nation for
number of loads shifted. As shown in Table 3, Arizona has
consistently shifted a large nu~ ber of loads from 1982 through 1984,
b u t has issued relatively few axle citations.
TABLE 3
ARIZONA AXLE AND GROSS CITATIONS
LOADS SHIFTED FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982, 1983 and 1984
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 3 Year
1982 1983 1984 Total
Trucks Weighed 1.102.544 1,018.820 1,414,707 3,536,071
Gross Citations Issued 949 1,087 645 2,681
Ax1 e Citations Issued 572 487 163 1,222
TOTAL WEIGHT CITATIONS 1,521 1,574 808 3,903
Loads Shi fted 21,424 17,800 21,023 60,247
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 22,945 19,374 21,831 64,150
Source: Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of
rans sport at ion, Overweight Vehicles - Penal t i e s & Permits , An
Inventory of State Practices. r e ~ o r t s dated December 1984 and
Citation authority needed - The statutory 1 imitation on axle citations is
viewed by Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) and Motor Vehicle Division
( E'IVD) rnanaaen~ ent as a weakness in Arizona's weisht enforcement program.
An FHWA o f f i c i a l stated that shifting alone is not a good deterrent. Most
s t a t e s allccr issuance of a c i t a t i o n i n addition t o requiring the truck
load to be shifted. Therefore, for Arizona to strengthen deterrence, a
c i t a t i o n should not be prohibited. In addition to the deterrence aspect,
issuing citations for overweight axles would help compensate for the road
damage caused by the axle overload p r i o r t o s h i f t i n g .
CONCLUSIONS
Arizona does not adequately deter axle weight v i o l a t i o n s . S t a t u t e s
prevent issuance of a c i t a t i o n if a driver agrees t o s h i f t overloaded
axles. This i s viewed by MVD and FHkM as a weakness in Arizona's eight
enforcement program.
The Legi sl ature shoul d consi der modifying A. R. S 528- 1 031 . G so an
overweight axle c i t a t i o n can be issued even if the load i s shifted.
FINDING IV
MORE THAN ONE- THIRD OF ALL VIOLATORS
ARE NOT ASSESSED MINIMUM STATUTORY FINES
Changes are needed to strengthen the deterrence effects of overweight
penal ties. A1 though Arizona's fine schedule for weight viol ations is
generally adequate, these fines are often not imposed. In addition, an
inconsistency in statutes should be revised to provide harsher penalties
against all repeat violators.
Monetary penalties are a common method to deter overweight vehicles and
prevent highway deterioration. However, to deter overwei c; ht vehicles,
penalties need to be maintained a t effective levels and be enforced.
According to the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) , over1 oading will
continue as long as i t i s economically feasible. Unless the penalty i s
h i g h enough to impact the trucker's profit, enforcement will not affect
decisions to run overweight. If penalties are high enough, there must
also be a high 1 ikel ihood that violators who are caught will be assessed
the penal ties.
Arizona Fine Schedule
Appears Adequate
In general , Arizona's statutory fines appear adequate. A1 though the FtiliA
would l ike to see fine levels increased nationstride, Arizona fines compare
favorably with most other states. flinimum weight fines are set forth in
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) S28- 1031 . C. These fines range from $ 50
for an initial violation of 1,001 pounds, to $ 1,000 for violations in
excess of 4,750 pounds. ( See Table 5, page 51 , for examples of fine
amounts. ) P. ny wei9ht violations less than 1,000 pounds carry only a $ 1
fine. Overweight fines are cfepositec' in the Hi~ hway User Revenue Fund to
maintain streets and hichviays and are allocated t o c i t i e s , counties and
the State.*
Thirty- Eight Percent Of Viol ators
Are Not Assessed The Minimum Fine
The judicial system often f a i l s to enforce the minimum statutory
penal t i e s . Of overweight violators , 38 percent are assessed fines 1 ess
than the statutory minimum.** The average fine reduction is $ 750 for
those fines t h a t a r e reduced. This not only diminishes the deterrence
effect of the penalties, b u t also t r a n s l a t e s i n t o revenue loss to the
Highway User Revenue Fund of more than $ 000,000 per year. The following
case examples i l l ustrate this problem.
o A vehicle was found to be 6,740 pounds over registered weight.
The minimum statutory fine for being 6,740 pounds overweight is
$ 1,000 plus the 37 percent additional assessment, for a total of
$ 1,370. The violator pleaded guilty and was fined $ 50.
o A citation was issued for being 5,570 pounds over the legal
weight of 80,000 pounds. By s t a t u t e , the fine should have been
$ 1,370; however, no fine was assessed.
@ A violator was cited for being 9,200 pounds over Gross weiaht.
The fine by statute should have been $ 1,370. However, the fine
was set a t $ 456.21 ($ 333 fine plus 37 percent additional penalty).
ca A citation was issued for a gross weisht violation of 17,000
pounds. The violator was fined only $ 100 instead of the $ 1,370
set by statute.
Our sample of 312 citations indicated that enforcement of the minimum
penalties varies greatly from court to court. Some courts reduce fines
very often, while others tend to adhere to statutes. Table 4 ( page 33)
i l l u s t r a t e s this variance for the 18 courts with a t least five citations
i n our sample.
* Every fine, penalty or civil sanction for violation of the motor
vehicle statutes also carries an additional penalty assessment of 37
percent under A. R. S. $ 41 - 2403. A. For example, an additional $ 74. ~ o udl
be added to a $ 200 overweight fine. These additional monies are
deposited i n the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund for support of
various law enforcement and c r i ~ epr evention programs.
** A s t a t i s t i c a l l y valid sample of 312 was randonly selected from the
population of 2,111 weight citations w i t h ~ u itly dispositions for the
period July 1, 1984, throu~ h April 16, 1986. Of the 312 violations
selected, 120 ( 35 percent) received less than the m i n i m u m penalty.
The sample had a r e l i a b i l i t y of plus or minus 5 percent a t the 95
percent confidence 1 eve1 .
TABLE 4
VARIANCES IN COURT ADHERENCE
TO MINIMUM STATUTORY FINES
COURT
Peoria JP
West Mesa JP
Mesa City JP
East Mesa JP
Scottsdal e JP
Glendale JP
Kingman JP
Apache Junction City
Green Val ley JP
Quartzsi t e JP
Yuma JP
Fl agstaff JP
Parker JP
Tucson JP
( Nos. 1,2,4,5,6)
Bowie JP
Duncan JP
Sanders JP
Lake Havasu JP
EJUMBER OF
CITATIONS
MINIMUM
PENALTIES IMPOSED
o( 1)
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
17
5
5
PERCENTAGE OF
COF. 1PL IAE! CE
( 1 1 The Peoria JP Court dces not add the 37 percent surcharse to
w e i ~ h t fines.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General staff from a l l courts w i t h five or
more citations i n the random sample of 312 citations.
A1 though current statutes cl early establ i sh mi ni~ um penal t i e s , many courts
believe they have the authority to lower or suspend weight fines. Court
personnel provided numerous reasons for reducing fines. Two of the most
common reasons are hardship and belief that the driver is the wrong person
to penalize ( see Finding V , page 37).* However, Title 28, Section 1031,
clearly establ ishes the minimum fines for overweight viol ations and a
February 21, 1986, Legislative Cocncil opinion defines the extent of the
court's authority .
* Plea bargaining between a defendant and a prosec~ rtor i s another \:! ay a
fine can be reduced. This may occur when the cited party pleads not
guilty.
3 3
. . . courts only determine by construction the scope
and intent of the law when the law i t s e l f is ambiguous
or doubtful. If a law is plain and w i t h i n the
legislative power, it declares i t s e l f and nothing i s
l e f t for interpretation. To allow a court, i n such a
case, to say that the law must mean something different
from the common import of its language, because the
court may t h i n k that its penal t i e s are unwise or harsh,
would make the judicial superior to the legislative
branch of the government and practically invest i t w i t h
the 1 awmaking power. Sutherl and, Statutes and
Statutory Construction, section 46.03 ( 4th Ed., Sands,
79/ 2). Therefore, there is no authority to allow a
justice court to reduce a civil penalty prescribed by
A. R. S. section 28- 1031, subsection C below that
required by that section. . . .
In June 1986 the Arizona Supreme Court issued a memo to all Arizona courts
of limited jurisdiction advising them to impose the minimum statutory
penalties a f t e r t h i s problem was brought to the Court's attention by our
Office. The Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) should monitor court adherence
to minimum statutory weight fines and report discrepancies to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
Statutes Should 6e Revised To Provide
Increased Deterrence Fcr Repeat Violators
In addition to the problems with courts not inposing minimum fines,
current statutes do not provide adequate deterrence against repeat
violators. Arizona statutes are inconsistent in that they provide
increased penal t i e s for repeat viol ations up to 2,500 pounds, b u t provide
no increase in penalties for repeat weight violations over 2,500 pounds.
According to a 1979 report by the United States General Accounting Office,
assessing hicher fines for repeat viol ators discourages truckers from
running overweight. Hociever, current statutes do not specifically
establ i sh harsher perm1 t i e s for repeat viol ations of more than 2,500
pounds. For example, one violator was cited four times within five months
for being a t l e a s t 3,300 pounds overwight. The statutes provic'e a fine
of $ 600 for each violation of 3,300 pounds no matter whether i t i s a
repeat violation or not. In ccntrast, i f this violator had been only
2,500 pounds overweight each time, his fines would have doubled from $ 200
for the first offense to $ 400 for the t h i r d offense. Therefore, the
statutes should be amended to address repeat violations of 2,501 pounds
and over.
Further, i t appears that existing repeat viol ator penal t i e s for viol ations
up to 2,500 pounds are not being imposed because courts are unaware of an
offender's past violations. However, data on prior violations are
available through MVD. Officers could request a records check by radio
and indicate any prior violations found on the c i t a t i o n , thereby alerting
the court of the repeat violator status.
CONCLUSIONS
A1 though statutory fine levels are general ly adequate, courts often fail
to impose required minimum fines. S t r i c t e r judicial enforcement of
overweight penal t i e s woul d enhance enforcement efforts. Further,
providing harsher penal t i e s for a1 1 drivers who repeatedly viol ate weight
laws would also strengthen enforcerient.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PlVD should monitor courts' adherence to the statutory weight
violation fine schedule and report problems to the Arizona Supreme
Court.
2. The Legislature should consider assessing higher penal t i e s for repeat
violations i n excess of 2,500 pounds.
3. MVD should develop a prcced~ re to inform courts of repeat violatcrs
so increased fines can be imposed.
FINDING V
GREATER ENFORCEMENT EFFORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT TRUCKING COMPAhlIES
Enforcement effort should be directed a t truckin9 companies as well as
drivers. Owners who cause their trucks t o be illegally overloaded coul d
be held 1 iable for the resultant fines. In addition, the Motor Vehicle
Division ( MVD) could conduct weight audits t o deter trucking companies
from weight violations. Civil suits against companies that are serious
weight violators would further increase compliance.
Companies Could Be Required
To Pa. v Weisht Fines
Because trucking companies share a role in the operation of over~ eight
vehicl es , consi cleration shoul d be given to hol ding companies responsibl e
for violations. For example, the city of Tempe holds companies
responsible throucjh a 1985 city ordinance.
Currently, trucking companies or owners are not held responsible for
weight violations committed with their trucks. A1 though existing statutes
appear t o give courts the flexibility to hold truck owners responsible for
weight violations, this i s generally not possible in practice. An Arizona
Legislative Council opinion reaffirms this.
Generally , one i s n o t criminal 1y responsibl e for
unlawful acts of his employee, even though committed in
the employer's business, unless they were directed by
or knor; ingly acquiescec! in by the employer. . . .
Therefore, the person who actually drove or moved a
vehicle over the maxinum allowable gross weight i s the
one who i s responsible for payrnent of the fine. . . .
An owner i s only responsible i f he knowingly caused or
perrnittec' the overweight vehicle t o be driven or ~ oved
on the highway.
In practice, i t i s difficult t o prove that the owner knowingly caused cr
permitted the vehicle to be overweight. Further, courts are generally
required t o assess any fines against the person specifically named on the
citation. In the case of weight citations, this person i s almost always
the individual driving the truck at the time of the violation.
However, some courts believe they need the f l e x i b i l i t y t o penalize
companies for weight violations. As noted in Finding I V Y some courts do
not assess the statutory minimum penal ties because they feel the company,
not the driver, was a t fault. A statutory chanae would be required t o
allow courts t o hold drivers and trucking companies jointly responsible
for payment of weight fines. The following examples illustrate the need
for this flexibility.
e Prior to the enactment of Tempe's ordinance, a driver cited for
being overweight argued i n a Tempe court that his company told
him t o run overweight. The company owner, subpoenaed by the
driver, took the stand and confirmed that he had to1 d the driver
to run overweight and would continue this practice. The judge
could not fine the company under existing statutes and
subsequently suspended the driver ' s fine.
e A driver working for a small sand and gravel hauler was arrested
in Tempe for an overweight violation. The driver gave police a
fake name because he feared being fired from his job. He
subsequently told authorities the drivers from his company were
under company orders to run overweight b u t were fired i f they
received weight citations. The company owner subsequently
arrived a t the police station to pick up his truck's keys and
fired the driver. The company had a hiah number of previous
weight violations.
Cases similar t o this prompted a Tempe judge t o request a city ordinance
addressing company liability for overweight offenses. As of June 1985 the
City of Tempe can penalize compa~ ies or individuals owning trucks that
operate over wei~ ht limits. The Tempe ordinance on overweight vehicles
states that when the driver i s n o t the owner of a vehicle, the owner can
be held 1 iable for weight citation penal ties along with the driver.*
According t o a Tempe jud3e, i t i s easier to collect a larce weight fine
from a company than from a driver. Therefore, fewer fines would so
uncollected if companies were he1 d responsible. In addition, the judge
indicated that truckins companies that knowingly over1 oad their trucks now
tend te avoid the Tempe area as a result of Tempe's ordinance.
* One drawback t o this ordinance i s that i t applies only to truck
owners. An individual or company leasing trucks and overloading them
cannot be penalized.
Weight Audits Could Deter
Uverwelght lrucking Companies
Audits of truck companies weight bill ings woul d further strengthen
deterrence. Weight audits are simil ar t o other audits conducted by the
State and could be an effective tool for discouraging companies from
intentionally and repeatedly overloading their trucks. However, MVD
abandoned efforts to conduct weight audits of trucking ccmpanies.
A weight audit involves the review of a trucking company's weight records
for evidence of trucks being illegally overloaded. Weight audits coul d
result in the issuance of overweight citations or the imposition of civil
penalties based on an estimate of actual road damage caused by the
companies' overweight trucks. In addition, after a certain number of
weisht violations, truck registrations and permits could be revoked.
A weight audit would be similar to other truck- related audits or
inspections currently conducted by the State. In fact, MVD already
reviews the data that would be used in a weight audit, b u t does not have
specific statutory authority t o use i t for weight enforcement purposes.
Truckins company records are currently open to inspection by GVD for motor
carrier and fuel tax enforcecent.* Trucking companies are a1 so required
to maintain records relating t o motor carrier safety.** These records are
subject to inspection by LIVD or DPS. Using these other existing sections
of statutes b1VD currently reviews such records as weight tickets, b i l l s of
1 ading, recorcis of truck mi1 eage traveled within the State, shipping
invoices and delivery receipts. \! eight audits would entail a review of
bill s of 1 ading and weight- re1 ated records such as shipping invoices.
Therefore, no additional data woul d be required for weight enforcement
purposes. Further, State statutes currently establish weight recorc's as
prima facie evidence of trucks v e i ~ h t . A. R. S. S28- 1031 . H states:
* A. R. S. $ 28- 159S. 07 addresses record keeping and audits for the motor
carrier tax. I t requires motor carriers to ". . . maintain those
books, records and other data the director requires" and t o ". . .
make the recoras available during normal business hours. . . ."
Similar provisions for fuel tax enforcement are found in A. E. S.
$ 28- 1 504 and 28- 1 505.
** A. R. S. $ 28- 2402.
A weight certificate or other document evidencing the
receipt of goods for shipment issued by a person
engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding
goods, stating the gross weight of the vehicle with
load which i s in excess of the prescribed limitation
permitted by SS28- 206, 28- 1 008, 28- 1 009 or 28- 1 009 . O1 ,
i s prima facie evidence that the weight of a vehicle
and load i s unlawful. LEmphasis added1
Providing FlVD with the specific authority to conduct weight audits would
appear to be consistent w i t h this statute and w i t h other truck- related
enforcement activities.
Weight audits have been effective in curtail ing the number of overloaded
vehicles in a t least one other state. Minnesota augments i t s weight
enforcement activities by giving i t s law enforcement officers the leoal
right to inspect weight tickets a t elevators, grain exchanges and
warehouses. These weight tickets, by Minnesota statute, are re1 evant
evidence of the weight of the load. The use of this relevant evidence in
civil penalties against trucking companies has been an efficient
utilization of Minnesota's officers as we1 1 as an effective deterrent.
Officers conducting audits check four times more truckloads per officer
than officers operating scal es. * Experience in Flinnesota indicates that
compl iance with weight 1 aws has significantly increased since the audits
were initiated. In addition, Minnesota ' s re1 evant evidence 1 aw forestal 1 s
truckers from avoiding brei~ ht enforcement operations since truck companies
are required t o keep accurate truck wei~ ht records. Companies can be
penalized for n o t maintaining required records.
In 1980 MVD attempted t o cite a company for weight violations based on
audits of weight billinas. In a case against a Phoenix area sand and
gravel company, llVD used criminal statutes t o obtain a search warrant t o
gather weight billing information. For a five- month period in 1979, 08
* In a one- year period from October 1 , 1983, through September 30, 1984,
11 officers checked 670,346 truckloads by checking eight billings.
This averages out t o more than 60, C100 truckloads checked per officer
per year. In contrast, Finnesota ' s fixed scal e operations k! ei ghed
approximately 15,000 trucks per officer per year. Arizona's rate of
trucks weiched per officer is comparable t o Flinnesota's.
weight billings indicated gross vehicle weight violations of a t l e a s t
3,000 pounds. The case went to a Maricopa County Justice Court, b u t a
clear decision was not reached because the court ruled the search warrant
was improperly executed.*
After the case, MVD's Attorney General representative made a
recommendation.
In order to continue systematic prosecutions of
overweight viol ations using the business' records, I
be1 ieve you need statutory authority to either i ssue
subpoenaos or conduct weight audits. Idea1 ly you
should have both powers.
The Attorney General representative continued.
If the division wishes t o t e s t its present authcrity to
conduct weight audits i t could do so by attemptins to
conduct a weight audit a t a firm who has previously
refused to permit such an audit. If they refuse again,
then you could apply to the Superior Court for a civil
court order requiring the firm to permit such an
audit. That procedure woul d crystal ize the issue.
Legislation was proposed in 1981 to allow MVD to audit weight records and
civily assess violators. This 1 egis1 ation was part of a comprehensive
b i l l on administrative enforcement of weight violations which d i d not pass
and was never reintroduced. b1VD d i d not pursue testing its present
authority to conduct audits, b u t current MVD managers could not explain
why.
** The court ruled that the auditor did not fully explain to the auditee
the impact of the search warrant. Therefore. the court dismissed the
evidenie b u t not the case. The company and t h e s t a t e settled i n May
1981 when the company pleaded guilty to eiaht counts and paid $ 2,452
i n fines. The original fine levied was $ 15,235 for 59 rnisde~ eanor
counts of gross weight i n excess of a vehicle's declared gross k! eight.
Civil Enforcement Has
Proven t t t e c t l ve
Civil action against habitual or excessive offenders has been taken
against companies to recover damages resul ting from overweight
violations. Both Texas and Minnesota have successfully sued truckers,
shippers or companies for damages, although the two states take different
approaches.
In Texas the attorney general ' s office has obtained injunctive re1 ief
against companies and successfully sought damage recovery. The
defendant's record of criminal citations i s the primary evidence
supporting the s t a t e ' s case. Settlement amounts are based on a formula
developed by the University of Texas that estimates road damage caused by
overweight trucks.
Minnesota has enacted a civil penalty statute specifically applicable to
overweight violations. Civil actions may be taken against trucking
companies or leasees and penalties may be imposed in accordance with a
statutory schedule. Minnesota re1 ies extensively on weight audits to
provide the evidentiary basis for i t s civil actions.
In both states, civil actions have proven effective. Texas has
experienced a 30 percent reduction in aross weight violations since the
s t a r t of i t s civil enforcement efforts in 1984. The state collected over
$ 1.3 million in settlements in less than seven months. Minnesota
o f f i c i a l s attribute the 55 percent reduction in overloaded trucks in i t s
state during fiscal years 1982- 83 and 1984- 65 t o the civil enforcement
program. A total of approximately $ 1.2 million in civil penalties has
been collected in the four years since the civil penalty law became
effective.
Arizona could i n i t i a t e a civil enforcement program without enactinp
additional legisl ation. Arizona Revised Statutes 528- 101 3 a1 ready
provides an avenue for Arizona to f i l e civil suits against companies. The
statute states, in part, that any highway or structure damage resulting
from:
. . . operating, driving or movins any vehicle, object
or contrivance weighing or measuring i n excess of the
maximum weight or height in this article. . . may be
recovered in a civil action brought by the authority in
control of the highway or structure.
Further, the statute states,
When the driver i s not the owner of the vehicle, object
or contrivance, b u t i s so operating, driving or moving
the same w i t h the express or implied permission of the
owner, then the owner and driver shall be jointly and
severally liable for any damage.
However, this statute has never been used i n the area of overweight truck
damage. Firms that ship overweight loads i n Arizona currently have l i t t l e
incentive to keep their shipments within legal limits.* By suing
conpanies responsible for overweight shipments, enforcement authorities
can effectively deal with the source of many overweight problems. In
order to do this, MVD will have to begin tracking companies and
individuals who own or lease trucks that violate weight laws.
Trucking companies are n o t currently held responsible for weight
violations. Courts are generally limited to fining only the drivers of
overweight trucks, n o t the oviners or conpanies. In addition, MVD has not
followed up on e a r l i e r efforts t o conduct administrative audits of
trucking corpanies. Civil penalties tiould be an effective way to recover
damage costs from companies that repeatedly violate weight laws.
* Evidence indicates that some companies repeatedly violate weight
laws. Cf a random sample of 312 weight citations, 97 indicated the
name of the trucking company ( trucking company name i s noted on
citations by some officers, a1 though i t i s not required information).
Of these 97 citations, five companies \; ere identified that had a t
least two weight citations. One of these companies accounted for 12
of the 97 violations.
1. The Legislature should consider amending the statutes to permit courts
to hold trucking companies or individuals who own or lease trucks
jointly responsible w i t h drivers for a1 1 weight violations.
2. The Legislature should consider giving MVD the specific authority to
conduct weight audits of truckins companies.
3. MVD should consider bringing civil action against trucking companies
that are the most serious repeat violators of weight laws in order to
recover actual damages.
FINDING VI
MVD E, IEEDS BETTER INFORMATION FOR ITS WEIGHT EFdFORCEISENT PROGRAM
The Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) needs more and better data to effectively
operate i t s statewide weight enforcement program. A system for tracking
information from weight citations i s needed. In addition, the weight
enforcement program needs better weigh- in- motion data to determine the
extent and 1 ocation of overweight problems.
Two types of data are needed for effective weight enforcement operations.
First, information from weight citations needs to be gathered to increase
MVD's abil i ty to eval uate i t s effectiveness and to enhance enforcement
efforts against habitual violators. Second, more data on the location and
movement of overweight trucks i n Arizona need to be collected throuph the
use of weigh- in- motion equipment. Both types of information are needed to
plan and t o util ize 1 imi ted resources more effectively.
Citation Tracking
System Is Needed
MVD does not have an adequate system for obtaining needed information from
weight citations. The only system currently available was not designed to
provide weight enforcement data, therefore, MVD does not receive all the
information needed. MVG should expand i t s existing system to collect the
information i t requires.
The only system NVD has for collecting data from weight citations was not
designed for this purpose. This system \ vas designed t o track the points
accumulated against a driver's license as a result of traffic citations.
Because Arizona Revised Statutes $ 28- 444. B requires that MVD be notified
of a l l t r a f f i c violations, vieight citations are also entered into the
system even though they do not result in the accumulation of points
against a driver's 1 icense. Ho\ rever, since collection of weight citation
information i s not a primary function of the system, MVD does not take
steps t o ensure that the disposition copies of all weight citations are
remitted by the courts; therefore, they may not all be input.* Further,
even i f the citations are i n p u t , the system was not designed to collect
the kind of information the weight enforcement program needs, which
renders it relatively useless for this purpose.
Essential Information Is Not Tracked - Because MVD's current traffic
citation system provides 1 imited information for weight enforcement
purposes, i t cannot meet the needs of the weight enforcement program. A t
least four types of information n o t presently available need t o be
collected from weight citations.
e Trucking company name - This would allow MVD to determine which
trucking companies habitually over1 oad trucks. MVB coul d then
take the appropriate enforcement action against these companies
( see Finding V, page 37).
0 Time and location of the violation - This would help establish
patterns of overweight violations. Further, this woul d a1 1 ow MVD
management to evaluate the effectiveness of i t s crews and of the
program as a whole.
Q Fine amounts imposed by courts for each citation** - This would
permit MVD t o monitor whether courts are imposing the minimum
fine amounts required by statute ( see Finding IVY page 31 ). In
addition, this information i s needed t o meet Federal reporting
requirements.
a Gross and axle \: eights and axle configuration of the violating
truck - This i s needed to monitor whether courts are imposing
minimum statutory fines. In addition, this data could be used to
calculate costs of damage done to roads in Arizona by overweight
trucks ( see Introduction and Background, page 1). I t cauld also
he1 p provide documentation for civi 1 suits against companies ( see
Fi ndi ns V , page 37).
~ r For example, the City of Phoenix dces not remit any weight citations
t o MVD because they do n o t affect driver's 1 icense points.
** A1 though there is a field for fine amount in I.! VD1s current citation
tracking system, i t often contains inaccurate data. This i s because
data entry operators are n o t required t o enter anything in this
field. Further, when they do enter the amount, i t may be distortec'
because the system cannot accept anything greater than $ 99.99.
Weight fines exceed this f i ~ u r ea t least 13 percent of the time.
Much of this data could a1 so be generally used by MVD management to assign
mobile weight crews and t o ensure that limited weight enforcement
resources are being used in the most effective manner possible.
Other Arizona enforcement agencies monitor t r a f f i c enforcement information
such as the number of violations per month and year to date, the type of
violations per month and year to date, and where violations occurred.
Reports are then generated and used t o identify patterns and trends and to
assist in selective enforcement efforts.
Existing system could be expanded - The existing t r a f f i c citation system
could be expanded to include a secondary purpose of tracking information
from weight citations. The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADCT) i s
planning to redesign the traffic citation data base i n the near future.
Fields for location, company name, and grass and axle weights could be
added and the field for fine amount could be expanded. The system could
be programmed t o gather this data only for citations related to weight
violations. The system would not have to generate the actual reports,
however. The data on weight citations could be transferred t o floppy
disks and could, therefore, be manipulated on a microcomputer.* This
would allow MVD personnel to sort the data acd prepare any type of report
they need.
Since the source for data entered into this system is the citation copy
remitted to MVD by the courts, some information would have to be added to
weight citations by the issuing officer. For example, company name and
more detailed information on axle and gross weights would need t o be
included on a1 1 weight ci taticns. CIVD \; eight enforcement officers and
officers from other agencies involved i n weisht enforcement would have to
be instructed on how t o include the extra information since standard
citation forms do not have specific spaces for it.
* This process was trsed successfully by Auditor General staff to examine and
summarize the weight citation data that exists on MVD's current t r a f f i c
citation system.
More Nei gh- In- Motion
ara 1s Neeaea
MVD needs to collect more weigh- in- motion data t o determine the extent and
location of overweight problems across the State. MVD as well as
enforcement agencies in other states are encouraged by the Federal Highway
Administration ( FHWA) to gather data on overweight trucks through
wei gh- in- motion systems. However, MVD data on port bypassing and
intrastate noncompliance i n the State's interior are very limited.
According to FHWA's December 1985 summary report, nationwide there is a
lack o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y reliable data to estimate the magnitude of the
overweight truck problem. FHWA i s promoting the use of weigh- in- motion
( WIM) scales to gather data on overweight trucks. Weigh- in- motion scales
incorporate re1 atively new techno1 ogy that a1 1 ows vehicles to be weiahed
a t normal driving speeds. FHWA considers W I!! equipment accurate enough
for ~ o ntoi ring truck weight, providing design data, planning analyses and
some enforcement activities ( See Other Pertinent Information, page 49)
Currently, a few states use NIf4 data to determine schedules for their
mobile team activity. For example, Oregon and Florida schedule tine and
locations for their mobile crews based on WIN data. HIM data can be used
by MVD as a planning tool for weicht enforcement activities. Because the
data would indicate the extent and location of overweight problems, MVD
could use the data t o determine where mobile scale crews should be
assigned. In addition, such data would assist ADOT engineers i n
determining pavement design requirements.
ADOT has n o t significantly util ized weigh- in- motion equipment to document
port bypassing or intrastate noncompl iance with wei sht 1 aws. ADOT's
Transportation Planning Division ( TPE) used \! IF! scales for only cne
significant study in October 1,085. This study gathered data on traffic
volume and truck weights on 1- 40 near GCinona and Sel i ~ m ~ nan, d on 1- 10
near Tonopah , as requested by ADOT's !! laterial s Section. The resul ts
indicated serious overwei ~ h ttrcc k problems at these 1 ocations. However,
after the study was completed, b1VD questioned the accuracy of the data
based on concerns that the I4IM scales may n o t have been properly
cal ibrated.
4 8
TPD currently has plans to use WIM scales to collect data i n the Phoenix area
for the Naricopa Association of Governments. However, IvlVD would like to be
assured that WIM scales are properly calibrated before WII)? data are utilized
i n weight enforcement programs. TPD and MVD need to establish acceptable
procedures to ensure that the WIM equipment is calibrated each time i t is used
for weight enforcement data gathering.
CONCLUSION
MVD does not have the data it needs to maximize the effectiveness of its
weight enforcement program. MVD does not track data from weight c i t a t i o n s .
In addition, weigh- in- motion scales have not been widely used to document the
extent and 1 ocation of overweight truck problems.
1. FWD needs to implement a weight citation tracking system to gather
information on individual weight citations. In additicn to the data
a1 ready coll ected, MVD needs the foll owing information from each weight
citation.
m trucking company name
r l o c a t i o n o f v i o l a t i o n
o axle and gross weights
s fine amount assessed by the court
2. MVD needs to encourage more extensive utilization of HIH scales to
document the extent and location of overweight truck problems i n
Arizona. MVD needs to work k: i t h ADOT's Transportation Pl anning
Division to resolve flVD management's concerns w i t h ' AIM scale accuracy.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORblATICN
During the audit we developed other information pertinent to the Motor
Vehicle Division's ( MVD) Weight Enforcement program. T h i s information
addresses: 1 ) wei gh- i n- moti on techno1 ogy, 2) organizational placement of
weight enforcement functions, 3 ) the weight viol ations fine structure and
penal t i e s , 4) city and county enforcement, and 5) use of CB radios.
New Technology In Weight
knforcement Operati ons
Use of weigh- in- motion ( W IM) equipment, which is currently being
considered by The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), coul d
alleviate some existing port of entry problems. WIM systems can be used
to reduce high truck volume going over existina s t a t i c scales by sorting
overwight trucks frcm leaal trucks. Further, some types of low speed
WIMs could replace s t a t i c scales i n the future. In both cases, t r a f f i c
would flow more smcothly through the ports, reducing backup problems
during periods of heavy truck activity.
Decreasing truck volume over s t a t i c scales could be accomplished by using
MIMs for sorting purposes. A few s t a t e s - for example, Florida and
Pennsylvania - already use WIMs for screening overweight vehicles on the
approach ramps to weight stations or ports of entry. Under t h i s
arrangement, a WIM scale is located cn the approach ramp leading into the
port. Trucks entering the port pass over this scale before reaching the
s t a t i c scale. Only those trucks near the maximum legal weight 1 imit would
be directed over the s t a t i c scale. All other trucks would be routed
around the s t a t i c scale for credenti a1 verification. The resul ting 1 ower
volume of trucks going over the s t a t i c scales could reduce wear and tear
and lessen the need for frequent scale repair. Overwei~ ht citations would
s t i l l be written based on the certified s t a t i c scales.
In the future, low speed WIrk could replace port of entry s t a t i c scales.
Nhile a high speed llIM can be used only for sorting purposes because of
1 imited accuracy, a low speed \. JIM scale i s more accurate. The accuracy of
this type of scale results frcm the slower speed design and the very f l a t
surface both preceding and fo11 owin9 the scale. With appropriate
equipment and a f l a t approach to the scale, a low speed WIM may achieve
accuracies similar to that of a s t a t i c scale. A few European countries
have used low speed WIN scales for several years for issuing overweight
citations. However, courts i n the United States generally do not consider
I data as admissible evidence of violation. Extensive testing is
necessary to provide the data needed to confirm that a 1 ow speed WIM scale
i s accurate enough to be certified i n Arizona for issuance of weight
enforcement citations.
WIM scales could help ease the backup problem when there i s a 1 arge volume
of truck traffic. Frequently, ports of entry such as Sanders and San
Sin; on have potentially hazardous truck backup problems during periods of
heavy truck activity. A low speed WIM scale can weiah a truck much faster
than a static scale. A1 ternatively, a h i g h speed VIM sorter allows many
trucks to avoid having t o go over the static scale, eliminating weighing
time entirely. Those states using WIFils for sorting purposes are able to
move trucks through their ports much faster.
ACOT is considering several ways to implement new technolo~ y i n i t s weight
enforcement program. Plans are being developed to test low speed WIMs a t
MVD's Ehrenberg port of entry. In addition, ADOT i s participating in a
multistate study of h i g h technology applicaticns for weight enforcement.
Agency Pl acement of ldei~ ht
I n torcenent Functions
Organizational placement of the commercial vehicle weight enforcement
function varies among the 50 states. Althcugh Federal weight laws govern
vehicle load limits on interstate highways, ezch state i s responsible for
enforcement of i t s own weight laws within i t s borders. According t o
Federal Ei ghway Admini stration i n forration asthered in 1980, most states
( 28) place weight enforcement in a lap! enforcement agency such as a
department of public safety or state police. Fcr cxa~ ple, Minnesota,
California and Washington have established commercial vehicle divisions
within their state police acencies which are responsible for all
commercial vehicle laws, including weight enforcement. Twelve other
states, incl Liding Georgia, New ldexico, North Carol ina and Arizona pl2ce
the function i n their highway or transportation department. Eight states
enforce weight laws through j o i n t efforts of two agencies. For example,
both Pennsylvania's transportation department and state police zssign
permanent personnel to weight enforcement activities. Mississippi and
Kansas have placed the weight enforcement function in the state tax
co~ mission and the department of revenue, respectively.
Weight Violation Fine
Structure And Penal ties
Arizona's weight violation fine structure needs more uniformity and
equity. Statutory penal ties for weight violations decrease on a per pound
basis for offenses over 4,750 pounds. Table 5 illustrates the penalty
structure for a f i r s t offense. Violations of 4,000 to 5,000 pounds result
in the most severe penal ties. However, as the magnitude of the viol ation
increases beyond this level, fine amounts per pound drastically decrease.
TABLE 5
FINE PER POUND EQUIVALENT OF SELECTED
MINIMUM STATUTORY WEIGHT FINES
Amount Over Fi ne/ Pound
Gross Weight Cverwei gh t Do1 1 ar Fine
Source: Arizona Revised Statutes 428- 1031 . C.
There is great variance i n overweight fine structures i n the United
States. Thirty- four s t a t e s and the District of Columbia have a s e t fine
per pound rather than a fixed table of fines as Arizona has. This allows
fines to increase as the weight violation increases. Consequently, the
most severe violators, who cause the most damage, are assessed higher
fines and are more effectively deterred. For example, South Dakota has a
cents- per- pound fine structure ranging from five cents per pound for
violations less than 3,000 pounds up to 25 cents per pound for violations
over 5,000 pounds. Some sates use a combination of a fixed fine table and
a cents- per- pound penalty.
In addition, the penalty for violating registered weight limits may be
inappropriate when compared w i t h other weight viol ation penal t i e s .
Arizcna Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) $ 28- 206 provides a graduatec! scal e of
registration fees for vehicles weighing more than 8,000 pounds ( including
1 oad). The weight a vehicle is registered for is the declared gross
weight. Vehicles found to be i n excess of their declared gross weight are
subject to civil sanction for a f i r s t offense under A. R. S. 528- 1031.
A violator of A. R. S. $ 28- 206 can be w i t h i n State and Federal weight 1 irnits
but n o t registered for enough weight. In contrast, axle and gross weight
offenders violate State and Federal weight limits, causing increased road
damage. However, those violations causing increased road damaae receive
lower penal t i e s . For example, a vehicle found to be 1,500 pounds over its
declared gross \, eight of 16,000 polinds i s subject to a fine of $ 100 and
must also pay a fee to reregister the vehicle a t this new weight. In
contrast, a vehicle 1,500 pounds over legal grcss weight of 80, COO pounds
i s subject t c only the $ 100 fine.* In aeneral , the penal t i e s for weight
registration violations appear to be excessive compared to the severity of
the offense.
* The statutes appear to contain contradictory penalties for violation
of A. R. S. $ 28- 206. Under t h i s s t a t u t e , the offense i s to be treated
as a Class 2 ~ i s c c ~ e a n o r . Hotiever, the penalty structure for
violation of $ 28- 206 i s in $ 28- 1031. Under $ 28- 1031, the S2e- 206
offense i s subject t. o a civil sanction and i s not treated as a Class 2
misdemeanor unless i t i s a repeat violation. Because the civil
sanction provisions of A. R. S. 528- 1031 are more recent than A. R. S.
$ 28- 206, we determined the penalty i n our example based on A. R. S.
528- 1 031.
City And County
I n torcement
There is no monetary incentive for cities or counties t o enforce weicht
limitations. Under A. R. S. $ 28- 1031. G, overweight citation revenue must be
submitted to the State for deposit i n the Highway User Revenue Fund. E! o
citation revenue remains with the city or county." In contrast, fines
from other traffic violations, such as speeding, are deposited i n the
General Fund of the governmental entity issuing the citation. MVD
officials would like to see cities become more aggressive with weight
enforcement. Increasing city and county involvement i n weight enforcement
increases staff and resources devoted to the weight enforcement function.
The requirement that cities and counties f o r f e i t a l l their weight citation
revenues may hinder thei r i nvol vement.
* A maximum of $ 10 may be deducted as reimbursement of administrative
costs.
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the ccurse of our audit we identified potential issues that we were
unable t o pursue due to tine constraints.
r Are outstanding warrants relating to Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD)
weight citations receiving proper attention?
I t i s not clear whether warrants relating to I? IVD citations are being
effectively enforced. When such warrants are issued, MVD i s responsible
for transporting arrested suspects back to the court where the warrant
originated. The distance from the location of arrest back to the court
can be substantial. MVD officials indicated i t i s too much trouble to
arrange for transporting suspects arrested on outstanding weight- related
warrants. An effective system of issuing and enforcing warrants i s
necessary to ensure payment of criminal weight penalties. Further audit
work is needed to evaluate the way MVD handles and enforces warrants
relating to i t s weight citations.
@ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoen~ xA, r~ zona8 5007
* 1912 '
BRUCE BABBITT
Governor
December 2, 1986
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
CHARLES L MILLER
Dlrector
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity of meeting with you and your staff
to discuss the forthcoming audit report on weiqht enforcement
activities in the Motor Vehicle Division. We were pleased to
provide feedback to the preliminary draft and to provide this
written response to the revised report.
Many of the problems and needs addressed in the report have lonq
been concerns of Department and Division management and we do
not take issue with its central thrust or its recommendations.
However, there are two areas upon which we feel it important to
comment :
A. Reference is made in the report to poor communication
between the Department's Motor Vehicle and Highways Divisions in
development of scale specifications. Certainly, such
communication is paramount to the success of our weight
enforcement efforts and we are constantly working toward
continued improvement. However, it is important to note that
most of the problems referred to occurred some years ago.
Except for the Ehrenberg scales, which were referenced as " the
best designed scales MVD has purchased", the most recent scale
installations occurred well over four years ago. In fact,
virtually all the hlotor Vehicle staff involved in those
installations have left the Department. Since that time,
communication between Motor Vehicle and Highways Divisions has
improved on a number of fronts.
B. Several times, the report refers to Weiqh- In- Motion
studies conducted by the Department and to data indicating that
more than one third of the trucks weighed were over gross weight
limits. We agree that such studies point to potential problem
areas but feel it important to note that Weiqh- In- Motion is an
HIGHWAYS . AERONAUTICS . MOTOR VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
I,
Page 2
These concerns aside, we find ourselves essentially in accord
with the specific findings and recommendations in the draft
report.
FINDING I: We agree that bypassing of ports of entry and
limited intrastate enforcement weakens the overall weight
enforcement effort. We further agree that MVD should make
greater use of mobile weight teams for interstate and intrastate
enforcement and that operations should routinely include night
and weekend checkpoints. Several relevant actions are underway:
a. A budgetary appropriation has been received to
" mobilize" personnel previously assiqned to six of the smaller
ports of entry covering the northern, eastern, and western
borders of the state. A total of eiqht mobile port teams will
derive from that action, the maximum number of teams possible
without adding FTEs to the present cadre. Additional equipment
obtained will augment the intrastate weighing operation,
consisting of nine two- person teaqs.
b. The Transportation Planning Division will be
providing, on a routine basis, current reports of heavy vehicle
traffic on all likely bypass routes. New information programs
are being developed to provide at least monthly reports to field
supervisors so that mobile team deployment will be matched to
commercial traffic patterns in the enforcement area. Night and
weekend operations will not be unusual and adequate radio
communications will be provided.
c. The Motor Vehicle Division is in the last stages of
realigning its field services personnel along program lines.
The new alignment will place all oort of entry and mobile weiqht
personnel into a qroup separate from the driver licensing and
vehicle enforcement functions t5at have tended to consume their
t ime.
d . ADOT has developed a ixuiti- year plan to continue the
- e rowth of the mobile intrastate weighing operation. The
addition of four teams per year is anticipated until a 24- hour,
365 day operation is achieved. The cost effectiveness of adding
mobile port teams will be continually assessed and new teams
will be requested as justified. We would expect the first
expansions of the mobile port teams to enhance our operations
along the western border of the state.
FINDING 11: We agree that inoperative scales have
allowed many trucks into the state without being weighed. We
further a9ree that much of the problem is due to development of
inadequate specifications in years gone by. Several of the
Page 3
scales installed in the early 1980s have proven to be poorly
designed. Since MVD relies totally on Transportation Planninq
and Highways Divisions for engineering support, it is difficult
to affix responsibility for the poor specifications that have
resulted in inadequate scales. However, we agree that better
communication when those specifications were being developed
would no doubt have achieved a much more satisfactory result.
We also agree that MVD should consider replacing problem
installations with heavier duty railroad quality scales. As
another alternative, a combined operation using a weiqh in
motion pad for screening and a single- platform static scale for
weighing suspected violators will be considered. We concur with
the recommendations that future installations ensure proper
drainage and accessibility for maintenance.
Several specific actions are underway:
a. The Motor Vehicle Division has been working closely
with Transportation Planning Division and Highways Division to
install and test at the Ehrenberg Port of Entry a slow speed
weigh in motion pad adjacent to the three- platform static scale
being installed. The purpose of this project is to gather
empirical data regarding the reliability of SWIM ( slow weigh in
motion) for enforcement. It is hoped that the data will prove
the SWIM reliable enough to meet court standards for citations
to be issued.
b. Prior to the purchase of any new static scales, ADOT
will consider the cost effectiveness of installinq heavy duty
railroad quality scales. Other alternatives that emerge as
technology advances also will be considered.
c. ADOT will analyze the costs and benefits of replacing
problem scales with heavier installations and will seek the
necessary funding to either replace or restore such scales to
operational levels.
d. Careful consideration will be piven to the need to
reinforce the new Ehrenberq scales prior to their installation.
e. MVD will continue its practice of recent years
expanding its reliance on engineers from other ADOT divisions
for a variety of technical needs, includin~ development of
specifications for permanent and portable scales.
FINDING 111: We agree that overloaded axles, which are
damaging and occur with some frequency, cannot be cited under
existing law and that the Legislature should consider modifying
A. R. S. 28- 1031. E to allow for issuance of a citation upon
discovery of a violation.
Page 4
a. The Motor Vehicle Division has had numerous
discussions with legislative and law enforcement representatives
regarding the need for such a change and, in the past, has
introduced legislation to accomplish that purpose. The bill did
not pass.
b. The Department will again seek such a statutory
change in its 1987 Legislative Program.
F I N D I N G I V : We cannot affirm or disaffirm the extent to
which local courts fail to assess minimum statutory fines for
overweight violations. As pointed out in the report, Motor
Vehicle does not have a systematic information system to monitor
court performance or to otherwise provide useful information
reqarding overweight citation issuance. We agree that the fine
schedule is not the central problem, but that hiqher penalties
for repeat violators would seem beneficial.
a. The Department will seek statutory chanqe to assess
higher penalties for repeat violators in its 1987 Legislative
Program.
b. An automated information system will be developed to
capture and collate statistics useful for monitoring enforcement
and judicial performance as regards minimum fines.
c. M. V. D. officers will be trained to make prior
conviction information available to the court, as appropriate.
The procedure for providing such information to local courts
will be strengthened and formalized.
FINDING V: We agree that greater enforcement efforts
should be directed at holding trucking companies accountable for
overweight violations.
a. 4s referenced in the report, in 1981 ADOT proposed
legislation to allow MVD to audit weight records and civilly
assess fines. That legislation did not pass.
b. ADOT will pursue amendment of statutes to permit
courts to hold trucking companies jointly responsible for weight
violations.
c. The Motor Vehicle Division will conduct further
research into the legality, equitability, and practicality of
conducting weiqht audits of trucking companies.
d. ADOT will research the legality and feasibility of
Page 5
bringing civil action against serious repeat weight violators to
recover actual damages to state highways.
FINDING VI: We agree that better information is needed
to effectively direct and evaluate weight enforcement programs
throughout the state. We agree that the information and systems
needs identified in the report are part of what would be needed
for an information system to be effective. We also agree that,
as such technological innovations as weigh in motion are
validated, they should be incorporated into the State's weight
enforcement programs. Several initiatives involving MVD, TPD,
and Administrative Services Division in cooperative efforts are
underway :
a. At the request of MVD, Transportation Planning is
installing additional traffic classifiers/ counters on identified
bypass routes. The Motor Vehicle Division is working with the
Information Systems Group of Administrative Services Division to
develop an information system that will translate the data
gathered from traffic classifiers/ counters into reports
accessible to area managers around the state. The information
provided will facilitate deployment of intrastate and mobile
port teams to match commercial traffic patterns.
b. The Motor Vehicle Division, Highways Division, and
Transportation Planning have collaborated on redesigning the
impending installation of new static scales at the Ehrenberg
Port to accommodate a structured study of slow- speed weigh in
motion. The purpose of that study is to qather data comparing
SWIM weights with those of the certified static scale in the
hope that, if validated, SWIM weishts can eventually be used to
support issuance of citations. On a separate track, MVD and TPD
have collaborated with the Arizona Transportation Research
Center at A. S. U. to contract a study of the legal and practical
obstacles to usinq weigh in motion in Arizona.
c. As priorities allow, Motor Vehicle Division will work
with the Information Systems Group to develop and implement a
citation tracking and information system. Such a system will be
used to compare court- imposed fines with those mandated by
statute, monitor the incidence and location of weight
violations, and provide a base of information for program
evaluation.
In conclusion, allow me to reiterate ADOT's commitment to
significantly accellerate its efforts to Drevent overweight
violations on Arizona's roadways. We feel strongly that this
commitment is reflected clearly in plans developed and actions
taken over the last months. We expect demonstrable gains in our
Page 6
weight enforcement effectiveness within a matter of months and
are particularly confident in the impending realignment of MVD
field officers creating and segregating 17 two- officer teams to
mobile weight enforcement. We are also very hopeful that such
technological innovations as WIM and SWIM will prove valid for a
variety of applications, from pre- screening at ports of entry to
mobile enforcement.
Thank you again for the wealth of information provided in your
report and for the opportunity to frame this response to your
findings and recommendations.
Sincerely,
!
CHARLES L. MILLER
Director
Department of Transportation

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.